>In that sense, might it be needful to open up
a discussion concerning the notion of two heideggers, neither the early/late
pair, nor the pre-kehre/post-kehre, but one seeking to pietistically
preserve/recover the metaphysical tradition, the other to
demolish/deconstruct the same?
Hi Michael and others
This might be interesting. I'm not convinced that any division of
Heidegger's work is possible - there are changes and modifications of the
project sure, and Being and Time moves from being something he aimed to
finish to something he realised he couldn't finish, but every time there are
suggestions of something being part of one side i think i can see traces on
the other.
I'm glad Michael wants to exclude the stuff about the Kehre (surely one of
the biggest Heideggerian red herrings there is) and early/late, but i'm
equally not convinced by this divide either.
In preparation for a book, i've reread all of Heidegger's books and (re)read
all the lecture courses in sequence this year. What I found most fascinating
was both the continuity of concerns and the willingness to think again. It
seems to me that this complicates any such discussion.
But, this might be interesting to discuss. As above, i am not saying that
there are no differences, but these are perhaps differences within
Heidegger, not between Heideggers.
best wishes
Stuart
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
a discussion concerning the notion of two heideggers, neither the early/late
pair, nor the pre-kehre/post-kehre, but one seeking to pietistically
preserve/recover the metaphysical tradition, the other to
demolish/deconstruct the same?
Hi Michael and others
This might be interesting. I'm not convinced that any division of
Heidegger's work is possible - there are changes and modifications of the
project sure, and Being and Time moves from being something he aimed to
finish to something he realised he couldn't finish, but every time there are
suggestions of something being part of one side i think i can see traces on
the other.
I'm glad Michael wants to exclude the stuff about the Kehre (surely one of
the biggest Heideggerian red herrings there is) and early/late, but i'm
equally not convinced by this divide either.
In preparation for a book, i've reread all of Heidegger's books and (re)read
all the lecture courses in sequence this year. What I found most fascinating
was both the continuity of concerns and the willingness to think again. It
seems to me that this complicates any such discussion.
But, this might be interesting to discuss. As above, i am not saying that
there are no differences, but these are perhaps differences within
Heidegger, not between Heideggers.
best wishes
Stuart
--- from list heidegger@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---